Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Junior 9 Test (40'/40) after 300 games

Author: Sandro Necchi

Date: 04:46:46 01/01/05

Go up one level in this thread


On January 01, 2005 at 07:40:58, Harald Faber wrote:

>On December 31, 2004 at 15:21:23, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>
>>Again I agree. Some years ago there was no learning/book learning at all and
>>that was a big missing...which made a big difference with the human players.
>>Now that we have them we need to improve the learning features and not to turn
>>them off!
>
>
>There is danger that one might test the best learner.

Yes, but I think a chess program is a chess player and so it should be tested in
the best mode, suggested by the programmer, and without removing anything.
The learning feature is part of the program.

>
>
>>>I'm getting suspicious that most of the improvements in new programs is just >some "book-up" tricks against certain programs to gain quick Elo points.  >Disabling learning will allow these "tricks" to work continiously while book >learning/learning will eventually nullify them.
>
>
>This works only if one program does not learn while the opponent does.
>Kurt and some others actually take care that either both have learning on or
>off.

Well, no if a new program is including some learning for a specific opponent; it
is true that both do not learn, but one already did!
>
>
>>Sandro

Sandro




This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.